Once they see that an education is something worthwhile to be achieved not avoided they may come back. Even it they don’t, nothing is lost.
TCM

That is actually one of the big myths about the law. The tutoring and public school choice provisions of the law can redirect a state’s Title I funding, arguably a loss of funds, but there are no provisions for schools to lose funds if they don’t make AYP. In fact, in general they get — or under the law are supposed to get, more resources.

It is important to realize that when schools to not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) they are at risk of losing federal funds.

My experience tells me that NCLB with its “Just Do It(or else)” paradigm is irrelevent to the pathology of a Douglas High. The film demonstrates that good intentions alone will not reverse the failures that preceded the vast majority of these students arrival at Douglas. Certainly the fact that two out of three teachers are not certified and that positions go unfilled well into the school year create an atmosphere of desperation. And a safe and orderly environment is an absolute precondition for school improvement and not apparent at Douglas.

When Congressional policymakers make their next attempt at making lemonade out of the lemon that is our current federal education policy they would do well to review this film and ask themselves how their various proposals will specifically provide support to revitalizing not only schools such as Douglas High, but preemptively dealing with the conditions surrounding them as well.

I know we can find a way to get there and turn around schools like Douglass, or the school where I teach. I hope Peggy is right about new efforts in Baltimore, and the millions of dollars of new money. But doesn’t that fit under the category of putting the cart before the horse. Maybe we should have built capacity BEFORE the gamble of NCLB.

I’m glad that Chris Cross identified systemic problems as undercutting pre-NCLB efforts, and he does educational strategy, so I’d like to ask him a couple of questions.

Back when NCLB was passed, could he identify any scenerio where Douglass would be transformed by NCLB ACCOUNTBILITY?

NOW, is there any new accountability proposal that would be key to any plausible scenario to turning around Douglass?

I appreciate the institutional history I just learned from Cross, but I think he misinterpreted the documentary. The whole point is that NCLB is irrelevent to places like Douglass.

I don’t oppose anything about NCLB except its ridiculous accountablity regime. I fail to see how the taxpayers will become more willing to invest in inner city schools because of NCLB, that largely failed while wasting billions, or a newer tougher NCLB. How in the world would a better system of blame and shame help attract the teaching talent required to turn Douglass around?

While the system is still struggling, the schools themselves look very different as a result of several local foundations and Gates pouring millions into bringing innovation into the high schools via small school reform and outside operators. Additionally, an evaluation of the reform effort was conducted collecting survey and interview data on the process and outcomes and culminating in a student level analysis of the impact of the reform on enrollment and academic outcomes. It makes me wonder why no broader commentary has appeared as a result of that work.

While the documentary may provide commentary on urban high schools in general it is not an accurate depiction of what BCPSS looks like today.